have been meeting regularly this fall with a small group of undecided voters - my children.
This is the first presidential election in which all three - ages 14, 12, and 9 - are paying some attention to politics in anticipation of mock elections at their schools. Alas, they are also paying some attention to me.
During the three debates, they tell me, I sighed more often than Al Gore. After each one, I expressed exasperation and vowed to vote for Ralph Nader. Unlike the inane observations of voters assembled in television studios, however, witless post-debate commentary in one's own living room does not go unchallenged. Children, it turns out, actually expect you to explain yourself.
You're voting for Nader because there's no difference between Gore and George W. Bush? But didn't you tell us that, despite the common venality of their campaign fund-raising, each man pretty well represents the competing philosophies of his respective party on matters as diverse as gun control and reproductive freedom? Uh, yeah.
You're voting for Nader because you don't like the vice president's smarmy, condescending demeanor? But didn't you tell us the media have turned presidential elections into beauty pageants and voting is about choosing a world leader, not a dinner companion? Well, yes.
You're voting for Nader because you want to send a message to the Democratic Party that it shouldn't take its liberal wing for granted? But didn't you tell us that's how Massachusetts wound up with Ed King as governor in 1978 and the nation wound up with Richard Nixon as president in 1968? Uh, right.
My kids aren't the only ones to detect a disconnect between how liberal Democrats claim to think and how we plan to vote. A New York Times/CBS poll this week found that only 4 of 10 voters committed to Gore expressed enthusiasm for his candidacy. Republicans had reservations about Bush, too, but Democrats were much more conflicted about their man. Why?
It can't just be the hypocrisy of Gore denouncing Hollywood while cashing its campaign checks. It can't just be his focus on small-bore issues, like prescription drug costs, at the expense of an overarching vision. It can't just be his chameleon-like adaptation to whatever audience he's addressing.
More fundamentally, liberal Democrats can't decide whether to win or to stay pure. We hold every compromise, every centrist position against Gore, but when we had the chance to vote for a candidate who spoke unequivocally for all we hold dear, we summarily dismissed former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley as a sanctimonious loser.
Who better exemplifies this muddled thinking than environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest who plan to vote for Nader because the vice president once endorsed a compromise that saves the spotted owl but allows some logging in areas they'd prefer to preserve as wilderness? American voters of all political stripes claim to abhor the inordinate self-regard that propels those who run for office, but what else is it but our own outsized egos that turns on a particular candidate because he does not precisely mirror our own views on every issue?
No one voting for Ralph Nader on Nov. 7 expects him to win. The Green Party wants only to garner 5 percent of the vote to qualify for federal campaign money in 2004. But it is worth remembering that Nader himself is not even a member of the Green Party.
The anticandidate is drawing 4 percent in national polls this week, but he is doing better in such hotly contested states as Oregon and Washington. If he moves enough states into the Republican column, Nader could help elect George W. Bush the next president of the United States. Given that, my children want to know, what price does a liberal Democrat place on a protest vote?
Eileen McNamara's e-mail address is mcnamara@globe.com.
