No Choice

OVER THE PAST YEAR the American people, through their involvement in the political system of this country, have tested that system and challenged it to come forth with exceptional candidates and creative leadership. The system has answered with Humphrey, Nixon, and Wallace.

One could debate at length the relative merits of Humphrey and Nixon. Humphrey, once relieved of the burdens of Lyndon Johnson's presidency, might be able to lead us out of war. He would perhaps be better able to communicate with the black people of the country and might once again become a spokesman for the poor and the oppressed.

On the other hand, Nixon might be freer to disavow the Vietnam policies of the past. He could, in fact, have become a humbler and wiser man during his eight years away from the center of power and might be able to restore leadership to an angry, divided country.

But the truth is that both men are desparately out of touch with the mood and the needs of the people they propose to govern. Neither has come close to challenging the rationale for American aggression in Southeast Asia, and neither seems capable of the kind of complete disavowal which can best pave the way for an across the board restructuring of U.S. foreign policy. Humphrey for his part makes the conventional liberal analysis of American society and its ills, and offers the conventional liberal formulas to remedy them. Nixon repeats the stale Republican refrain about high taxes and excessive government spending, and suggests that the good will and resources of private enterprise can somehow substitute for government action on the problems of the cities.

Why not vote for one of the two as the lesser of two evils and mark it down as a grueling but unavoidable duty? One could vote for Humphrey--were the country still not reeling under the impact of a liberal Democratic Administration, had Humphrey not allied himself in Chicago with the repressive chieftans of of his party, had he not stood against the minority plank on Vietnam, and were he somehow able to throw off the oppressive weight of his own rhetoric.

Or one might vote for Nixon--if the punishment of the Democratic party is itself an object to be desired. But there is no cause for assuming Nixon might use his new found influence for new found goals, and the seeming inevitability of a reactionary interregnum is no reason to jump on the bandwagon.

Wallace, ironically, is the most consistent and honest of the three. He has pointed out the absurdity of fighting a war without the determination of winning it, and he has repeatedly stressed the need for individual citizens to regain some control over the decisions that affect their lives. Moreover, Wallace has given a vast number of Americans a real voice in this election, and has bucked the establishment so well that he might even throw the election into the House of Representatives. He would be an attractive candidate to vote for--if he didn't use his hard hitting rhetoric to justify hawkishness and states rights-racism.

HOW THEN DOES one vote? Often--as in 1964, when Johnson was a clear choice over Goldwater--the logic of the lesser of two evils has been persuasive. This year another course is indicated.

Voting is, of course, a political and not a moral act. But it is a myth that in this election one can have political impact only by voting for Humphrey, Nixon, or Wallace and it is a myth that by refusing to support one of them, a voter is sacrificing political influence for the sake of a clear conscience.

There are several possibilities. In 23 states it is now possible to vote for a party of the left and have one's voted counted. In these states, one should vote to the left of the major three candidates--whether it be for Eugene McCarthy, Eldridge Cleaver, Dick Gregory, Fred Halstead (Socialist Worker), or Henning Blomen (Socialist Labor). In several other states, court fights are now going on to get electors pledged to left-wing candidates recognized by the regular state organizations.

In states like Massachusetts where no left wing candidates qualify for the ballot or for a legal write in, one should refuse to vote for the Presidency.

None of these actions is equivalent to wasting a vote; for this year, as never before, newsmen and the major candidates themselves are going to be watching the size of the protest vote. Not only, in other words, is it possible to retain moral integrity by this course of action, but one can also effectively register opposition to the inadequacies of all three major candidates and to the backward looking American system which produced and sanctions them.

A vote for Humphrey or Nixon to save the country from Wallace is an unnecessary gesture that registers no protest; for even if he managed to throw the election into the House of Representatives, the Alabaman would not have the strength to see either himself or his philosophy prevail.

In addition, voters in many states have worthwhile candidates for Congress to vote for, like the 11 Senate candidates who are forming as a left wing coalition around McCarthy. No one is going to prevent the next Congress from being conservative, but the election of men like these will help. They could, in the future, form the nucleus for an effective left wing movement in this country, as Wallace has become the nucleus of the Right. Like the refusal to vote for Humphrey, Nixon or Wallace, their election would be a step toward honestly appraising how bad things are, and how much work there is to be done.