Pacifist Politics

Generally speaking, regardless of how well a political candidate pledges to handle any number of issues, he or she remains flawed in the eyes of a pacifist due to the solitary issue at the forefront of today’s news: war. As a pacifist, I remain staunch in my beliefs that a candidate worthy of my vote is one who will make an honest effort to end war indefinitely. You don’t have to be very perceptive to see that our two major presidential candidates don’t exactly fit the bill. I’m twenty-one years old and I will not vote in this presidential election. Unpatriotic? Perhaps, but casting a vote for the “lesser of two evils” is nearly impossible when, from my standpoint, there is no such thing. This view is radical, but certainly not uncommon. Pacifists worldwide subscribe to the general view that world peace is a possibility and not a joke.I’m not standing alone, but I’m certainly discouraged. John Kerry was initially marketed as the nation’s potential saving grace, and although he has announced plans for bringing troops home from Iraq during his first term in office, I’m not convinced that he will be a significant improvement over Bush. A large part of Kerry’s campaign is orbiting around his military experience and “valor” in Vietnam. I use the term valor facetiously because I certainly don’t equate it with the violence that took place in a war that we were arguably never meant to be a part of. Obviously, a candidate who stands so strongly behind his military patriotism is not opposed to using violence as a means to defend, regardless of his views on the current war. Although Kerry’s intentions to remove soldiers from Iraq are admirable, they offer no long-term solution, no real change. I think it’s safe to theorize that a large percentage of the U.S. population would agree that the current violence in Iraq is unnecessary. In light of that, it’s no surprise that John Kerry is proposing a course of action that embodies the hopes of U.S. citizens, and such a proposal certainly isn’t indicative of a durable commitment to the potential for peace.Although I’m not ready to jump on the Kerry bandwagon, I don’t believe Bush to be absolved of his mistakes in the absence of a clear-cut improvement. Kerry shows no signs of aversion to future wars, but it is under the guiding hands of Bush that we have suffered losses of currently 1,006 lives in Iraq. While significant, American losses pale in comparison to the high-end estimate of 13,802 Iraqi civilian casualties alone, with total Iraqi deaths estimated at 30,000 or more and climbing. The website www.IraqBodyCount.com provides not only the stunningly high death toll, but more disturbingly, a rolling list confirming the names and occupations of the dead. Such slaughter is senseless; no motivating factors should merit this kind of damage. War wages on regardless, and Bush is apparently unfettered because his own campaign seems to focus more on dismantling John Kerry’s than much of anything else. In addition, he continues to maintain the necessity of the current war. Such a leader, willing to liberally use violence to solve relatively trivial conflicts, certainly doesn’t appear to be remotely interested in the possibility of peace. Even if I momentarily put down my peace mongering beliefs, I’m still hard-pressed to stand behind a candidate who has consistently proved himself as nothing if not incompetent.I arrive now at a stalemate, having deemed both major presidential candidates painfully unfit for office. However, the presidential race is not a one-on-one event and independent candidate Ralph Nader appears notably promising in terms of the pacifist interest. If Nader’s pledge to instate a foreign policy that focuses on war prevention is substantial, then he seems to me like the United States’ best hope for a harmonious future. Even from a non-war related standpoint, Ralph Nader appears sound. He has raised provocative questions in letters to both George W. Bush and John Kerry, attempting to uncover their views on an electoral reform and environmental concerns. This is not to knock the views of either Kerry or Bush on such issues, but simply to point out that Nader’s concerns on the matter, coupled with his views on preventing future wars, make him formidable competition.Regardless of how promising Nader’s platform appears, chances of seeing him in office are fairly slim, because his party and views are relatively radical amidst a nation that is very much set in its ways (despite liberal aspirations). However enticing world peace seems to the masses in theory, the actuality is that most people simply accept war as necessary. Because Nader, as an independent and highly liberal candidate, has such a limited following, he’s susceptible to being viewed by many as simply a vote-sway. For instance, Florida has recently ousted him from their ballot, blaming the two-percent vote he garnered in the last presidential election for Al Gore’s convoluted loss. This election the only candidate whom I might consider voting for may not even be on my ballot by the time November rolls into town.It’s clear that my voting options are limited and, quite frankly, I just don’t like it. It’s because of this that I arrive at my previously mentioned decision not to vote for a president this year. I’m well aware of the more pro-active alternatives, such as writing-in someone I deem suitable, but honestly, what’s the point? Realistically, write-ins serve only to skew the vote, and in favor of whom? It’s no victory in my eyes to steal votes from either Bush or Kerry, because I consider them both equally dangerous. My lack of vote should not be equated with a lack of care; on the contrary, I care quite a bit. I care enough to want my fellow human beings happy, balanced, and alive. I blindly believe that candidates such as Ralph Nader will one day be seriously considered for office by a majority, and when that happens, I’ll stand behind them on both feet. Until then, I patriotically abstain.