The louder the Democratic Party leadership and so-called progressives complain about Mr. Ralph Nader’s bid for presidency, the slimmer the chances are for the democrats to win the election this second time around. Why is that? Because it means they are again ignoring the ‘issues,’ the very thing that they ignored four years ago. There are people who want to see critical issues being addressed in the presidential debate. Instead, all we get is election rhetoric and empty promises that they try to pass off as presidential leadership.

There are important issues other then ‘beating Bush’ that need to be discussed in  the public forum. These issues are the very thing that Mr. Nader will bring into the public debate. He will discuss corporate fraud, national health care, NAFTA, and a whole host of other issues in a thoughtful and intelligent manner. These issues haven’t been addressed in a fair and open manner in the last four years. In fact, they haven’t been addressed even during the Clinton presidency. And if Mr. Nader is not successful in bringing the discussion of issues to the table, I’m afraid that the democrats may see a replay of four years ago.

And let’s be clear about this, Mr. Nader didn’t make Al Gore lose four years ago. Al Gore simply didn’t win. He didn’t win his home state of Tennessee. He failed to challenge Bush on basic issues. He didn’t have the leadership or conviction to demand a proper recount in Florida. By adopting a 'centrist' position (read republican), he failed to provide workable solutions on critical issues. And while he did get the majority of the votes, he certainly didn’t win the mantle of being the 'democrat' that he professed to represent.

The Democratic Party asks us to unconditionally support their frontrunner while being contemptuous of anyone suggesting that there needs to be more issues on the table. They inform us that the ‘fear’ of another Bush term is all that we need to be concerned about. They play this ‘fear’ card by suggesting that anyone who questions their political approach will be responsible for another Bush term.

Why does this ‘fear’ card sound familiar? Oh yes, we see Mr. Bush using the very same ‘fear’ card when anybody challenges his presidential leadership. He defends his policies by calling into doubt  the patriotism of anyone who dares to question his policies or his resolve against terrorism (remember 9/11).

Democrats and progressives looked down on Mr. Bush for that simplistic knee-jerk argument that conveniently disregards the validity of the Iraqi war. And we should look down on the Democratic Party leadership when they warn us against raising issues that undermine their candidate's position. There is one issue more fearful than another Bush term. And that is when neither party stands up for freedom and justice.

When we act out of fear, we get fearful results. Fear is sometimes useful for identifying danger, but it is not useful if we react in a fearful manner. Fear is also used by manipulative people to make others believe that there is danger when none exists.

Responding with a fear-driven reaction without cognitive thought (jumping without thinking) is usually not in our best interest. We are capable of rational  thought, and that is what we should expect from our public officials. We should object strenuously when any party attempts to use 'fear' based messages and arguments. We need information and issues that aren't clouded by manipulative intent.

We need to welcome all that Mr. Nader will bring to the table. We don’t need to fear what he will take away. This is a person who dedicated a lifetime working for the benefit of society, and who approaches issues with a thoughtful and insightful manner that has resulted in profound change. We don’t need to silence his voice. We need to encourage it.