Many progressives are not voting for Gore for the simple reason that they believe he has not earned their vote. They believe he's forfeited their vote.

These progressives have spent years and years campaigning against the Iraq sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of children. Al Gore is in favor of Iraq sanctions.

These progressives have spent years and years defending poor people and the safety net. Al Gore urged Clinton to destroy welfare.

These progressive have spent years and years opposing the death penalty. Al Gore is in favor of the death penalty.

These progressives have spent years and years clamoring for a reduction in Pentagon spending. Al Gore wants to boost Pentagon spending.

With the race for Presidency tightening, Al Gore is not recanting his views on these issues to appeal to progressives. No, he's sending out surrogates to browbeat these progressives into eating their spinach and being good little boys and girls and voting for him, no matter how bad he is.

Their hyperbole is getting out of hand.

Jesse Jackson says, "Our very lives are at stake."

Paul Wellstone says George W. Bush will "repeal the twentieth century."

But many progressives won't be scared or bullied into voting for Gore.

They believe that they have a right to decide who to vote for on the merits of the candidates.

They understand that on many issues, there are no differences between Bush and Gore.

And they understand that politics is not just an exercise one day out of every four years, but that it is a regular activity, and that real, fundamental change--including securing abortion rights--happens in this country not by voting for this Republican or that Democrat, but by building a mass movement.

As Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in The Nation of August 21/28: "We didn't get legal abortion in the first place because nine men in black robes were kind enough to allow us to have it. Women fought for it by every means possible, illegal as well as legal. Surely the anti-Naderites of the left can agree that Roe v. Wade wasn't the the author of women's liberation, just as Brown v. Board of Education did not create the civil rights movement."

Ehrenreich continued: "Deep social change is made by deep social movements, not by edicts. But the leftwing Gore-ites often seem oblivious to the dynamics of real social change. They say we have to build an alternative politics--only not just yet."

Let's examine the Supreme Court argument a little more closely.

First of all, it's not a given that George W. Bush will appoint arch conservatives who will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Republican presidents have appointed many justices who turned out to be liberal:

George the First, W.'s dad, appointed David Souter.

Ford appointed John Paul Stevens.

Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade.

And Eisenhower appointed William Brennan.

But the doomsayers say we're in more ideological times today, and that Bush the Younger would never appoint another Souter.

How can they be sure?

Take a gander at Bush's appointments in Texas.

The New York Times did a front-page piece on these appointments back on July 9, and here's what it found: "A look at Mr. Bush's record in Texas shows that he has appointed justices who have had a moderating influence on the Texas Supreme Court, often regarded as among the most conservative and pro-business in the country. He has appointed four of the court's nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth."

The Times cited one particularly illuminating example: "Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court stunned social conservatives throughout the state by issuing a 6-to-3 ruling that allowed a 17-year-old high school senior to have an abortion without telling her parents."

That's right: George W. Bush's state supreme court upheld abortion rights!

Even a conservative justice appointed by Bush might uphold Roe v. Wade on the basis of stare decisis, the legal doctrine that says precedent should be respected. Chief Justice William Rehnquist invoked this doctrine last term when he joined the majority in upholding Miranda, even though he opposed the original Miranda decision.

Nor does it seem likely that George W. Bush would want to stack the court with anti-abortion justices since that would mean a disaster for Republicans at the polls.

And even if Bush wanted to do so and succeeded with his first reactionary appointee (assuming, of course, that a liberal and not a conservative is the first justice to step down), the Democrats and pro-choice advocates around the country ought to be able to put up a big enough fight to defeat any second such appointee. (Note: Scalia was approved 98-to-0. Not a single Democrat opposed him.)

The Supreme Court is a torn and tattered card that Democrats whip out of their sleeve every four years to enforce obedience.

It is an argument that says, no matter how bad the Democratic nominee is on a whole range of important issues, you've got no choice.

But this year, Al Gore is very bad on many basic issues, and progressives do have a choice.

Here are some of the issues where Gore and Bush are the same.

They are both in favor of:

The ongoing sanctions against Iraq.

The continued illegal bombing of Iraq.

U.S. aid to the brutal military forces in Colombia.

An increase in Pentagon spending to levels above $300 billion a year.

Maintaining the stockpile of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Tightening the Cuban embargo.

Backing Israel, no matter its repressive actions in the Occupied Territories.

NAFTA.

Fast track.

The WTO.

The IMF.

The World Bank.

The destruction of the welfare safety net.

Faith-based social programs.

A privatized health-care system dominated by the insurance companies.

The Victims' Rights Amendment.

The punitive war on crime that has put two million Americans behind bars.

The war on drugs that has eviscerated many of our civil liberties and has led to the locking up of 271,000 nonviolent offenders, 100,000 for mere possession alone.

And the death penalty!

On all of these issues, Ralph Nader takes the diametrically opposite view, a view that is 100 percent progressive.

So when the Democratic attack dogs snarl at progressive Nader supporters, they are saying, in effect, these issues don't matter.

They do.

Yes, there are big differences between Gore and Bush on some important issues, including:

Abortion.

Affirmative Action.

The courts.

The environment (though Gore's record here is nowhere as green as he claims).

Gay rights.

Labor union protections.

And Social Security.

Gore supporters are seizing on these differences and are shrieking, with shriller and shriller rhetoric, that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

But people have a right to vote their conscience. If some progressives believe that Nader better represents their views, they are not voting for Bush at all. They are simply voting for the person they think is the best candidate. That is their right.

Secondly, Nader votes don't somehow "belong" to Gore, anyway. Gore, like any other candidate, has to earn people's votes. They are not his by some right of inheritance.

And thirdly, a lot of people, especially young people, who are drawn to Nader would never even show up at the polls if he weren't in the race. They don't want to make their first vote a tumble down the muddy slide of pragmatism.

They favor Nader because his campaign connects up with, and is the electoral expression of, the Battle of Seattle, the protests against the IMF and the World Bank, the anti-death-penalty activism, the anti-sweatshop campaigns on campuses, and the living wage initiatives across the country.

And that is one of the beauties of the Nader campaign. It is part and parcel of a new movement in America that is demanding a more peaceful and humane foreign policy and a more just society here at home.

So I understand why many progressives will vote for Nader.

And I understand why many progressives will vote for Gore.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

But what is not legitimate is to deride and denounce and heap scorn and shame upon any progressive who might dare to stray from the narrow confines of the Democratic Party.

Matthew Rothschild is the Editor of The Progressive.

Copyright © 2000 by The Progressive, Madison, WI.

###