We all know Ralph Nader and most Greens aren't going to be any help in
ridding us of the Bush occupation.  Nader and his camp often refuse to
acknowledge Bush's serious flaws.  In a perfect world, we'd have alternatives
to the more timid members of the Democratic party, but in this real world
Democrats are the only realistic option for American liberals.

It is crucial, even urgent, that we rank and file Democrats get to work now
to help assure Democrats keep their congressional seats in very shaky
upcoming elections.  I think it's also important we see why it's logical we
learn to love Al Gore - and other Democrats.

Love and logic don't always seem to mix, but when it comes to learning to
love Gore and even the weak-kneed Democrats in Congress the head and heart
meet.  Disillusioned Democrats might be tempted to turn to the Green party or
stay away from the polls in the next election.  However, as Doug Ireland
points out in an article for In These Times (8/19/02), "Democratic chances of
retaining their one vote Senate control are shaky at best."

Ireland adds, "Three Democratic incumbents are in serious danger: Minnesota's
Paul Wellstone, Missouri's Carnahan and South Dakota's Tim Johnson."  The
election cycle looks dismal for Democrats, Ireland points out.  Returning
control to Republicans would give the Bush junta even more freedom to play
Caesar and rip away citizen's civil liberties.

If disheartened Democrats refrain from voting because they're angry at
certain party leaders, the result will amount to turning the anger against
themselves.  Yes, rank and file Democrats have good reason to object when
party officials fail to stand up to Bush on critical issues.

As Doug Ireland writes, "Dick Gephardt has given Bush a blank check to invade
Iraq, as have Democratic presidential candidates Joe Lieberman and the
'liberal' John Kerry.  Some Democrats, like Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, are
running TV spots featuring pictures of themselves with Bush."  Ireland adds,
"Even more glaring and indefensible has been the way Democrats have blown the
opportunity to make serious political capital out of the corporate scandals."

Those things are true to a point, but the bottom line is that for all their
infuriating behavior, Democrats really aren't identical to or equally as bad
as Republicans on many key issues.  More importantly, the big picture
includes the fact that throwing Senate control to the Republicans means
almost an almost certain free ride for the Bush team.  That would mean there
would be no investigation of any future Bush-Cheney misdeeds.

Ireland says of the Green party's running candidates against liberal Democrats
such as Paul Wellstone, "It's bad strategy and bad politics to put up a candidate
against…the Senate's most progressive member."

It's also bad strategy and bad politics to let anger motivate progressives to
essentially commit political suicide.  We need a Democratically-controlled
Congress, even if some individual Democrats aren't our ideal.

When liberals and progressives essentially turn our anger inward, virtually
attacking ourselves because we're ticked off at, say Gephardt or Kerry, we're
not necessarily operating with a balance of head and heart.  Balance might
lead us to admit that logically it's not a good idea to reject the better of
two options, simply because the better option (a Democratically-controlled
Congress) is not a perfect option.

Arguably, it's not logical to let the perfect become the enemy of the merely
good.  For many liberals and progressives, the heart (or idealism) drives us
to aim for perfection in every situation.  We're understandably eager to root
out corruption, and it's tempting to want to wreck the whole system all at
once rather than nudge it along patiently.

However, a more loving attitude might involve the slow and steady approach to
political change, considering the amount of real human suffering that would
likely result from handing Bush even more freedom to have his way with the
country.  A balanced "heart-approach" would have to include a certain amount
of forgiveness toward even the most lily-livered Democrats.

Al Gore recently spoke out publicly against the Bush administration and said
he still thinks he was right to run his presidential campaign on the theme of
the people versus the powerful.  Gore has also stated he would emphasize that
theme if he runs again.

Again, while some liberals and progressives might not find Gore a perfect
candidate, he's one of the only prominent Democrats speaking out in this way.

Gore has a very good chance of winning if he runs again, especially if he
hires new people to run his campaign - hopefully savvy ones in the James
Carville mold.  Many of us know that Gore actually won the last presidential
election.  Only the Supreme Court's halting the vote count handed the
election to Bush.

I think voters would turn out in droves for Gore in order to restore him to
his rightful position, especially if he keeps up his current assertiveness.
Those who have remained angry with Gore and other Democratic leaders for a
variety of reasons might consider trying a little tenderness.

With a balance of head and heart - the logic of knowing the Democrats really
are preferable to Republicans on the whole, and the love to forgive them for
failing to be perfect - we liberals will find strength in Democratic party unity.
Sure, we'll disagree among ourselves, and we can and should urge certain
party leaders to grow stronger spines.

However, if we stay home from the polls, let Republicans dominate Congress
and give Bush a free ride just because we're angry with some Democratic
leaders, we'll be turning that anger against ourselves - and not only ourselves
but future generations.  The consequences of giving the Bush bunch even more
power could have long-range repercussions in which no person of conscience
should want to be complicit.